Reader Responses – Justin and “Avid Reader” (Core beliefs)

For those of you who haven’t done so already, please check out Justin’s and Avid Reader’s responses to my post “On Our Social Venture – Core beliefs.”

Given the overlap b/w their replies, I will respond to that overlap in this post. For your convenience, I will recap their thoughts (and hopefully I will do them justice):

Justin said (in part 6 of his reply),

“Science shows that we are a product of chemical processes and biological structures that exist in a physical world.” Given that fact, depression very well may be, to some degree, “a problem of chemistry, biology, or physics.” He then posited, “If we can document brain patterns for when we think, why can’t we track the chemistry behind depression and perhaps understand alterations based on drugs?”

He then advocated reconciling my emphasis on human agency in overcoming depression with an acceptance for “the agency of chemical alterations in changing the way our minds work.”

Avid Reader drew the analogy (from his/her high school physics class) of trying to find an approximation for physical phenomena via an equation, to trying to find an approximate solution for depression, viewing “each human being as a problem that does have a solution.”

He said, “Though our initial equation may be an approximation, in fact, that serves to generally describe many of the problems (or most people) that we observe, and we can begin to make better and better approximations, adding more specific terms, so that our equation only describes the single problem we began with.”

He continued to say that “Psychiatry, given this analogy, is about trying to figure out how to write an equation that represents most people, and perhaps provides further approximations that can be made for given specific characteristics of the person being observed.”

He acknowledged the human limitations of time and energy in dealing with the complexity and variety of human beings (who suffer from depression), but concluded that “though psychiatry, and thus medication, may be an impractical way to help everyone, it is probably a very effective way of helping most people” and “every person can be logically figured out to a very close approximation.”

Lastly, he advocated that people try to do just that – try to “figure themselves out, so that they can logically help themselves through hard times.”

Here is my response:



Justin, I absolutely agree that depression is to some (probably large) degree a problem of chemistry, biology, physics, etc. I’m fully ready to accept the scientific literature that speaks of chemical imbalances.

I just believe that medication is not the best way to address the chemical imbalance. I believe it can better be done through life changes and adopting a good and strongly hopeful outlook on life.

The somewhat applicable analogy I would draw here is that building muscle is also about chemical changes (hormones and whatnot), and while we certainly can use steroids/HGH to accomplish this, it is better in the long run for most people to develop the will and discipline to exercise.

In short, I agree with your reconciliation of agencies (chemical and human), but would add that they may not even need to be reconciled at all if you look at it in a certain way – human agency drives chemical agency, and everything you do (even merely existing and maintaining homeostasis) involves chemical changes in your body.

Avid Reader, your post is the strongest argument for therapy/medication I’ve ever come across. I suppose (I would hope) that was the original intention of therapy and medication in the first place, though my intuitive sense (based on very limited reading of articles and listening to a few speakers) tells me that they’ve sold out and gone commercial. For instance, you hear these days about how pharmaceutical companies make minor irrelevant changes - and disguise those changes as “innovation” – all for the sake of upping the prices of newer medications.

In short, I entirely agree with you that therapy and medication have enormous potential to help people out, at least in theory. However (and you have already pointed all of this out), it is a matter of time and feasibility. To adequately approximate the “equation” would take an enormous amount of time, and I’m not so sure the powers-that-be are quite willing to devote their lives and energies to it (sure, psychiatry is young, but it seems it’s going in an awful direction).

I would add also the caveat that I still believe that therapy and medication are fundamentally too passive, and that the same chemical changes (solutions to the problem, solutions that exist for each and every individual, as you say) can be accomplished through taking action to embrace your passions and develop your sense of self-worth.



Lastly, while I personally greatly value logic and introspection, and try to understand and even analyze myself as much as possible (go “meta” on myself), I’m not so sure everyone else has the time/willingness/ability to do that.

I believe that sometimes it’s not so important to be able to articulate exactly how you are changing, and that you can act your way into new ways of thinking in enormously healthy ways without even being completely aware of or articulate about what exactly that new way of thinking is. I believe that it’s more important to change and overcome your difficulties than it is to be able to logically explain the process of how you’ve done so, though a thorough logical understanding certainly would help in future similar (and not-so-similar) situations.

In short, I’d say that a thorough logical understanding of oneself is just icing on the cake.

So there it is. Thank you so much for your replies, Justin and Avid Reader. I can hardly believe I have such legit people reading my blog, and look forward to hearing more from you!

-David

[nsn_quick_feedback]